Most of them probably know deep in their minds that the laws of physics are real, but since their entire Reconstructionist political theology is part and parcel of a house of cards that would fall apart if challenged in any way, they must publicly pander to the core constituents that support and buy into it.

And the chairman for the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology is 89 year old Ralph Hall. Hall is a former Texas judge who has now been in congress for 32 years. He was a democrat until the Bush administration came into power, then he switched parties, mostly because he is a long time friend of the Bush family. He was heavily involved with Jack Abramoff, indeed Abramoff made 15 calls to his office the day the CNMI scandal broke, but there were no consequences to him from this.So the USA has a crooked dotard in charge of one of the most important committees for America's future. This will not end well.

This can be easily fixed, with no impingement on 1st. amend. `free speech', by requiring all 535 Cong.critters to post up ALL face-to-face meetings with lobbyists on video/ALL other communications with lobbyists (phone, smoke signals doesn't farking matter) be posted up as well (particularly proposed legislation written by lobbyists). These communications would have to be available on their websites within 48hr.s/immediately, if pending vote impacting lobbyist's masters is going to be taken the following day.

That, and strict public financing (only) of all elections. This wouldn't prevent the `wink-and-nod', but the fear of mandatory 5 yr.s in prison term for violating the above rules would deflate K Street as we know it, and force some of the `elect' to think for themselves.

Why do you think both parties try to assign new elected reps, from hotly contested districts to the Finance Com.? Wouldn't have anything to do with the financial services industry lobbying ($$$) arm, would it? Get enough support to swing the next election to the `incumbent'.

/majority of voters - don't understand the scientific method and lack the funds to be considered `constituents' who are allowed access to `experiment' with the `science' of politics

Well, when a 54 story steel and concrete skyscraper falls down @ the same rate of every other controlled demolition in history and the accepted Main Stream view is that it fell down symetrically because of asymetrical office fires for the first time in architectual history it is not surprising that these are the people in charge of scientific advancement.

Spanky_McFarksalot:xynix: Once we're at the level to manipulate and then observe we'll have a viable quantum computing base. From then on it's huge.. Perhaps by 2025 we'll have our first QC processor which will be thousands of times faster than standard silicon processors. Thousands!

fine, but can you put that in "porn" terms so the rest of us can understand it...

Sure.. As more data is created it will become harder to search through it all. Today there are about 1000 companys that have over a petabyte of data. By 2020 it's expected that 1000 companys will have an exabyte or more. That's 1000 petabytes which is 1000 terabytes. Searching through that much data is going to require serious processing power. So you'll want QC processors just so you can find the exact porn you're looking for at blazing speeds. Remember when searching for porn you're also competing with people searching for unimportant shiat like science stories..

pciszek:AllUpInYa: It's a sad state, but Maddow doesn't seem like she's much sharper.

If she knows that the universe is more than 9,000 years old, then she is more science-literate than Broun and some of the Bush appointees to NASA.

Its easier just to ignore people who call Rachel Maddow stupid. Do you disagree with her? Fine, that's acceptable. Anyone who thinks she is stupid has their head so far up their own ass its just a waste of time arguing with them about anything.

CheekyMonkey:USA Prime Credit Peggy: Giltric: Everyone questions why they let these republicans dictate science policy but it's just a distraction keeping you from asking why politicians in general are the ones who dictate science policy.

When left to a politician, which of the scientists do you think will get a grant....the one who wants to grow a sweet stawberry or the one who wants to grow a tatesless strawberry with a long shelf life that ships well.

D or R they are all in the pockets of lobbyists.

Hmm, I detect from your post that you seem to believe that both sides are bad...

Which side should I then vote for, kindly sirrah?

A third party. Any third party. If you all continue voting for the lesser of two evils, then we're condemned to be "governed" by a congress full of Tweedle Dums & Tweedle Dees, and have either Tweedle Dum or Tweedle Dee as our president.

The problem is critical mass. Third parties must hit it before large numbers of voters will run the risk of supporting a third party candidate who currently fails miserably and then the voters end up wasting their vote, in essence, voting for the greater of two evils.

A lot of people like the idea, maybe even ENOUGH like the idea, but not enough people will risk it in the end.

spentmiles:As a quantum optics hobbyist, I applaud David and Serge's work. Their calculations match my own and are soft of a justification for every one of us out that that said you could in fact measure the immeasureable. I know these guys were working hard - too hard to answer letters apparently - and they deserve the accolades.

As a stay at home father of two junior college students, who are currently taking introductory physics and astronomy classes, I have to say that I'm worried about the future of our country's education programs. Paul Broun and Todd Akin are dragging us right back into the dark ages with their faith based arguments and complete ignorance. They want us to return to the Middle Ages when the church was all powerful and pedagogical development was at a standstill. Can you imagine how happy they'd be if we didn't have science programs, but instead spent vast sums on religious indoctrination and faith initiatives?

I'll have you know that at this very moment I am broadcasting signals into outer space - signals that contain precise instructions for an invading alien force -- where to hit, how to hit, and when to hit. And they are receiving these messages too. Just google random numbers, map each number to its corresponding word in the American College Dictionary, and then feed those words into Google translate. You'll see exactly what I've seen - the aliens constructed google and are using it as a communications channel to correspond with us in the know.

Bottom line - we need smart people making decisions. Smart people like me. I should do something about this.

If she knows that the universe is more than 9,000 years old, then she is more science-literate than Broun and some of the Bush appointees to NASA.

Its easier just to ignore people who call Rachel Maddow stupid. Do you disagree with her? Fine, that's acceptable. Anyone who thinks she is stupid has their head so far up their own ass its just a waste of time arguing with them about anything.

"Sharp" is generally used to indicate conceptual prowess, but Maddow is sharp. Presumably AllUpInYa is talking about ignorance, since she is relatively ignorant of science. She seems to have non-specialized college level knowledge. That is, someone who neither majored in a science, nor is an enthusiast who studies the details on their own, but did take courses and paid attention. That's above average, but perhaps lacking for the responsibilities of a science panel.

But, the people she is complaining about are on the panel, and yet much more ignorant than that. That's a legitimate gripe no matter who it's coming from. You don't have to be a nuclear technician to know that Homer Simpson shouldn't be in the safety inspector.

Why Would I Read the Article:Deucednuisance: She's a freaking Rhodes Scholar, jeenyus. She graduated from Oxford with a doctorate in Political Science. Now she's hosting a TV show about Politics.

Look, I'm not saying that the little dude isn't intelligent, but let's stop pretending that an advanced degree in political science is something we should be impressed with.

An advanced degree in Poli Sci from Liberty University or Oral Roberts University might not be of much value. An advanced degree from Oxford (following a baccaleaureate from Stanford) is of some quantifiable value.

coeyagi:CheekyMonkey: USA Prime Credit Peggy: Giltric: Everyone questions why they let these republicans dictate science policy but it's just a distraction keeping you from asking why politicians in general are the ones who dictate science policy.

When left to a politician, which of the scientists do you think will get a grant....the one who wants to grow a sweet stawberry or the one who wants to grow a tatesless strawberry with a long shelf life that ships well.

D or R they are all in the pockets of lobbyists.

Hmm, I detect from your post that you seem to believe that both sides are bad...

Which side should I then vote for, kindly sirrah?

A third party. Any third party. If you all continue voting for the lesser of two evils, then we're condemned to be "governed" by a congress full of Tweedle Dums & Tweedle Dees, and have either Tweedle Dum or Tweedle Dee as our president.

The problem is critical mass. Third parties must hit it before large numbers of voters will run the risk of supporting a third party candidate who currently fails miserably and then the voters end up wasting their vote, in essence, voting for the greater of two evils.

A lot of people like the idea, maybe even ENOUGH like the idea, but not enough people will risk it in the end.

Yeah, although your statement "in essence, voting for the greater of two evils" assumes that the greater of the two evils always wins the election.

Honestly, though, I don't understand why people allow themselves to be manipulated by the "Big 2" into thinking that they are polar opposites of each other, when really, they're both in the pockets of Big Business, and neither of them gives a fark about the little guy.

If she knows that the universe is more than 9,000 years old, then she is more science-literate than Broun and some of the Bush appointees to NASA.

Its easier just to ignore people who call Rachel Maddow stupid. Do you disagree with her? Fine, that's acceptable. Anyone who thinks she is stupid has their head so far up their own ass its just a waste of time arguing with them about anything.

DownDaRiver:Any commitees purpose is best served when there is a rounded point of interest and views.

Yes but not believing in science is not a view that serves the efforts of the SCIENCE committee well. All educated persons know the Big Bang theory is most likely incorrect but not because the devil invented it--because the science doesn't add up. These people belong in a time capsule, not on an official committee that could change the government's plans for funding etc of scientific endeavors.

xtalman:bobfark: traylor: evolution and the big bang theory "are lies straight from the pit of hell."

What somebody spreading lies from the pit of hell may look like.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 410x600]

Link

Actually, that looks an awful lot like the Jesuit science teacher that taught me about the Big Bang theory & evolution. Soo........ No

and for the record, no, he didn't teach me they were lies from Hell...

Actually according to the fundies the Jesuit's are straight from the pits of Hell.

/Taught by Franciscans who are considered just as bad.

Good point. Though the Jesuits also taught us, though the Franciscans were nice guys, they weren't as smart as them.Jesuits definitely considered themselves to be the elite in the Church, they even had their own pope (the Black Pope).

And from what I recall, a lot of fundies grouped Catholics, Jews, blacks and mormons in the same tent, they were very inclusive with who they hated!

If she knows that the universe is more than 9,000 years old, then she is more science-literate than Broun and some of the Bush appointees to NASA.

Its easier just to ignore people who call Rachel Maddow stupid. Do you disagree with her? Fine, that's acceptable. Anyone who thinks she is stupid has their head so far up their own ass its just a waste of time arguing with them about anything.

How about Limbaugh or Hannity? Are they stupid?

I'm willing to concede that Limbaugh may be pretending to be more stupid than he really is. i.e., he denies evolution on the air, but he may be lying.

Of course, I can't find any Oxford degrees amongst the Republicans listed, so I'll take your word for it.

I know a guy who graduated from Oxford business .... he wasn't that sharp, either.

The only Oxford Business School I know of is what used to be the old St Aldates Secretarial College, so maybe his shorthand isn't up to much? I know someone who claims to have graduated from the Sorbonne, but neglects to mention that they went on a 6 week cookery course during the holidays.

Somewhat off topic, but I was a little disappointed in Rachel Maddow the other day. She had a segment complaining about Romney's foreign policy ignorance, and used a clip from the primary debates where he said (I'm paraphrasing):

There was no talk at all about terrorism in the 2008 presidential debates, and then, one year later, the world changed

From context, it's clear that his "one year later, the world changed" phrase refers to 9/11, and he meant to say the "2000 presidential debates" instead of the "2008 presidential debates." So a pretty benign flubbed line. But Rachel Maddow went medieval on his ass, bringing up all kinds of clips from the 2008 debate where terrorism was mentioned, to prove Romney's ignorance. She completely ignored the "one year later, the world changed" phrase, and what he could possibly have meant by that.

Doc Ok:Somewhat off topic, but I was a little disappointed in Rachel Maddow the other day. She had a segment complaining about Romney's foreign policy ignorance, and used a clip from the primary debates where he said (I'm paraphrasing):

There was no talk at all about terrorism in the 2008 presidential debates, and then, one year later, the world changed

From context, it's clear that his "one year later, the world changed" phrase refers to 9/11, and he meant to say the "2000 presidential debates" instead of the "2008 presidential debates." So a pretty benign flubbed line. But Rachel Maddow went medieval on his ass, bringing up all kinds of clips from the 2008 debate where terrorism was mentioned, to prove Romney's ignorance. She completely ignored the "one year later, the world changed" phrase, and what he could possibly have meant by that.

I found that disingenuous, and below her usual standards.

From what I can tell, those are her usual standards. She is a partisan blinded tool. She also went ape shiat about Romney's joke about not knowing why airplane windows don't open. And yes, it is a joke. Watch the video.

/this is coming from an Obama supporter, and one who is disliking Romney more and more.//Of course that doesn't mean she is always wrong. She is often right, in fact, and is here. These wackos should not be allowed near science policy.